Impact of Spinal Deformity and Surgery on Health-Related Quality of Life in Cerebral Palsy: A Multicenter Prospective Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Spinal fusion for scoliosis associated with cerebral palsy (CP) is challenging to study because specialized outcome measures are needed. Therefore, evidence in favor of the benefits of surgery has not been firmly established. This study aimed to determine if corrective spinal fusion improves health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in children with CP scoliosis at 2 years. METHODS: Children with CP and scoliosis who met the criteria for posterior spinal fusion were offered enrollment at 16 US and Canada centers. Participants' families selected either operative intervention (OP) or nonoperative treatment (NON) in discussion with their surgeon with no influence by the decision to participate in the research study. Demographic, clinical data (function level, magnitude of deformity, comorbidities), and HRQoL (CPCHILD Questionnaire) were collected at baseline and 2 years. Change (from baseline) in total CPCHIL scores was the primary outcome. RESULTS: Three hundred one OP and 34 NON subjects had complete baseline and 2-year data. At baseline, both groups were comparable in function level, comorbid status, and CPCHILD scores (52.1 ±15.3 vs. 53.4 ±14.5; P =0.66). The OP group had a larger spinal deformity magnitude (84.5˚ ± 21.8˚ vs. 66.3˚ ± 18.1˚) ( P =0.001). The total CPCHILD score improved in the OP group by 6.6 points ( P <0.001). NON scores were unchanged (+1.2; P =0.65) during follow-up. There were also significant score increases in the OP group for 5 of 6 CPCHILD domains. The change in CPCHILD scores from enrollment to 2 years was more significant in the OP group ( P =0.05). CONCLUSION: For children with CP who undergo spinal fusion, HRQoL improved over preoperative levels and an unchanged nonoperative control group. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".